I do not think that one need be "on the fence" in terms of the idea of an individual entity God in order to be an agnostic. I think it's more than clear, given our understanding of the world, that the idea of a personal god or a god who is an individual entity is false.
As for agnostic, I think the term embodies the scientific method. As sherlock holmes said:
Quote:
|
Once you eliminate the probable, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
|
Science is in the business of APPROACHING truth, not attaining it. It chips away at what is not truth in the same way that a sculptor chips away at what is "not" the statue. Science does this chipping with the scientific method. If the idea resists chipping then it's focused in on and people try their best to chip away at it.
Like gold that is melted and scraped and burned in order to purify it.
The process of science is a non-dogmatic self correcting study where we learn what is NOT the truth. What remains, we say, is something like the truth. This is agnosticism to me. It has provided us with our modern understanding of ourselves and the universe. It's given us the tools to actually see and hear the creation event (radio telescopes and the cosmic background radiation). It's given us modern telecommunications and extended lifestyles.
Agnosticism does not mean that the questions are too hard to answer or "the data isn't in." It means that I will build up an understanding of what things are not in order to get myself closer to the truth of what they are.
To me it's not "I don't know if I believe in yaweh/allah." To me it's: "those are false," but I still don't know what it means to exist or even if that question makes any sense in the first place.